From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7477138BF3 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 14:38:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9B01CE09FA; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 14:38:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ve0-f178.google.com (mail-ve0-f178.google.com [209.85.128.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9E16E09B7 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 14:38:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f178.google.com with SMTP id oy12so10975508veb.23 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 06:38:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=7PX4rtik04dGJN1ykGSi6+NneRN0tyr4dJP8vLKs26c=; b=eUc13V/jfDtt715gKzUSEAoSP7EF/jG6ZONmv95RqYocUFrEQbsSViPRsa854/XyuK s+otSpbVt04LjLAnW9PTAxZTNyk5UsrBrwxHuHyMu06mBv0+1HBlKB/LFo1C5Wt5ZKyY tSw8k+R5GXgOTauZsmO0oEFLF96IuTCKsKXeGqnRGnScCB3j7p+RJOKQzLH78dasoXDN npEn1l0NNU0Pk7vQO8rWhzgU/tkhPljl9GDDxWrAqPvfi81WyTXOzu8dmHLMUOHQ7qOG VBlfDdM6AMe3WR4Jij2CbfeXp3OEXQyjrcTM1BrEFgGwpRx8Q81+oQSWtdjpF9ZzX/ON OmQQ== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.164.80 with SMTP id d16mr13116845vcy.15.1392561500903; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 06:38:20 -0800 (PST) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.254.198 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 06:38:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20140216153133.70b784c7@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> References: <52E7DBC1.5020102@gentoo.org> <20140128182304.7d458a17@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <20140203062524.GA7467@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <20140203104341.2add2760@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140204210319.GA1935@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <20140205010833.1bcf8dca@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140213212818.GA2199@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <20140214195958.5aea85f0@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140215012855.417f1caa@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <20140215114157.6abe3da5@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140215143021.231bab3f@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <20140216082327.6f7b97ce@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140216144857.2c79cb34@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <20140216153133.70b784c7@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 09:38:20 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: H-f5EObgdehelwptqQaIidiMNvc Message-ID: Subject: Re: Assigning keyword/stable bugs to arch teams (WAS: [gentoo-dev] dropping redundant stable keywords) From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 1439c0f2-6f4a-49a1-818e-8c9886dfc402 X-Archives-Hash: 35c95a09a152ca6577d097cc325b62d1 On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 09:22:49 -0500 > Rich Freeman wrote: > >> Well, they can assign the burden to an understaffed team if the team >> wants them to. > > Achieving nothing in the process, even if the understaffed team > actually responds. It achieves getting them off of the maintainer's radar. My goal isn't to fix the package, my goal is to eliminate it as a burden on the maintainer. Basically that one version of the package is now maintained by the arch team. Yes, I know they won't maintain it. The only people that impacts are those who use the arch, who are free to join the arch team and help out. My sense is that they'd prefer having it around to having it deleted. > > It's been done like this since forever. Nobody is disputing this at all. The reason why this thread seems to go on forever is that it seems like the users of the minor archs don't like the status quo. > >> That leaves the choice with the minor arch team, with deletion being >> the default. > > Yes, but "understaffed" so nobody is making any choices here. Well, if they make no choice then the maintainer deletes the package. That's what you want, right? The package would only stay around if the minor arch asked them to. If they don't do that, then nobody can complain. However, I don't think it makes sense to enact changes like these unless the minor arch teams actually speak up about wanting the changes. If they don't I'd be inclined to just clarify that maintainers are welcome to trim old stable versions on minor archs if the bugs are older than n days. Rich